Who gets to decide what counts? Analysing public responses to Croatia’s national criteria for academic promotion

Abstract

Croatia is among the minority of European countries where criteria for academic promotion are determined centrally, by national legislation, rather than delegated to individual institutions. While universities may introduce additional conditions, they cannot modify the core framework. This makes the National University, Scientific and Artistic Criteria a powerful instrument for shaping academic priorities at the system level.

A new draft of these criteria, published in 2025, was subject to public consultation. Although the document lacks clearly articulated strategic objectives and includes no mechanisms for evaluating its long-term impact, it nonetheless reflects normative positions, by specifying which forms of academic work are recognised and rewarded. The public consultation, therefore, offers valuable insight into how academic values are constructed, contested, and negotiated in policy settings.

The submitted comments, from both institutions and individual researchers, exhibit a wide range of perspectives on what constitutes academic quality and merit. They also reflect differing orientations towards the policy process itself: some contributors assume an active role, providing constructive feedback and expressing an expectation of influence; others reject the process entirely, either through direct political opposition or a more passive stance of frustration and disengagement.

Of particular interest are the contributions addressing Open Science and the reform of research assessment, such as those advanced by the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA). Despite the fact that only one Croatian institution is currently a signatory, many researchers reference CoARA principles and express support for more transformative changes than those envisioned in the draft criteria. This suggests a tension between the reform-minded segments of the academic community and more traditional and metric-based policy approaches.

By analysing the content, tone, and implicit assumptions found in the public responses, this paper contributes to a better understanding of the dynamics of academic policymaking in a centralised system. While grounded in the Croatian context, it also points to broader questions about agency, participation, legitimacy, and the extent to which research policy reforms align with the evolving values and expectations of academic communities across Europe.